Author
Topic: One of the other Jesuses (Read 3333 times)

Was Jesus even called Jesus in his time? In Matthew he's "Jesus", in Isaiah, I believe, he's Immanuel. Was he called Jesus or Immanuel, or some other name (like Joshua?)?

-Nam

The Gospel writer Matthew, was referring to a prophecy from the Old Testament, more than 700 years before the birth of Jesus, in Isaiah 7:14: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us.

The name Jesus, or Yeshua in Hebrew, means "the LORD is salvation.

Many people shared the name. Christ's given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters.Quote amended

The Gospel writer Matthew, was referring to a prophecy from the Old Testament, more than 700 years before the birth of Jesus, in Isaiah 7:14: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us.

So, that is the Old Testament and then the New Testament:

M't:1:18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.M't:1:19: Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.M't:1:20: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.M't:1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.M't:1:22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,M't:1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

In the whole of the rest of the New Testament, Jesus is never called Emmanuel, or anything like it. This is the only time Emmanuel appears.

I don't think that there is a clearer lie in the Bible than this one in Matthew. The writer simply made it up.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Sorry guys, but Matthew is using the Greek OT called Septuagint (LXX) at this point. It translates the Hebrew for 'young woman' in the Greek word for 'virgin'. Matthew doesn't know the Hebrew version. This makes the mis-translate responsible for all the 'perpetual virgin' nonsense.

Also, if one reads the whole pericope in Isaiah one can see that this is a specific prophecy during the Syro-Phonetician war which explains that by the time the child is weaned, the war will be over - i.e. in couple of years or so. It has not prophetic value for the time of Jesus who was, of course, never called Immanuel.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Not quite: Wheels is making the point that the Isaiah verses do not refer to any "Saviour", but to the length of a war. However, whoever wrote Matthew did not seem to grasp this point, and used Isaiah as if it were foretelling the birth of Jesus.

The Birth myth of Jesus is comparable to the birth myth of Kim Jong Il

Quote

The concept is not that his son is his successor, but that his son is his reincarnation. North Korea has an equivalent of Mount Fuji—a mountain sacred to all Koreans. It's called Mount Paekdu, a beautiful peak with a deep blue lake, on the Chinese border. Here, according to the new mythology, Kim Jong Il was born on February 16, 1942. His birth was attended by a double rainbow and by songs of praise (in human voice) uttered by the local birds. In fact, in February 1942 his father and mother were hiding under Stalin's protection in the dank Russian city of Khabarovsk, but as with all miraculous births it's considered best not to allow the facts to get in the way of a good story.”? Christopher Hitchens, Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

IMO the strongest evidence for historicity in Paul is the "James, the brother of the Lord" reference in Galatians.

I'm starting to think that Galatians is the most fake book of Paul.

The penny dropped when I read that Paul is not consistent about how we should regard the law. In Romans he supposedly says you should follow it. Christians rely on Galatians totally, for evidence that they don't have to obey the law. Considering that Matthew says that anyone who preaches against the law, will likely be going to hell, it has seemed odd to me, that this easy attack is left lying around on the ground.

Acts is a book that has been fabricated to endorse Paul as a real person. It makes sense that Galatians would also need to be fabricated, to make a link between the Pauline Epistles, Paul and the Church, by his own words. Conveniently, not only does he attach himself to the church, but he also pukes up some critical Christian doctrine. What are the chances of that, in the same small (easily faked) document, without him mentioning it again, in any other epistle? As Paul admonishes the Galatians, there is no real need for him to bring up the Jewish Christian Church, and admit that they oppose his view. It substantially diminishes his argument to them. But, of course, he has no argument to the Galatians, because he didn't write the letter.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.